W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2013

Re: Expect: + Upgrade: = ...

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 10:35:45 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnX+cnVbE-e7KGzNHOC4Lt_0C5DDGrV9Y3Q5-mmQBrTjAA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>, Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 6 September 2013 04:23, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote:
> There is nothing preventing the server emitting further 100 status frames
> inHTTP/2 format.

100, or 1xx?

I thought that the text was good.  It specifically doesn't say
anything about what happens in the upgraded protocol, because that's
the business of that protocol.  For HTTP/2.0, I guess that in theory
you might get more 1xx status codes, but you won't get 100, because
we're prohibiting that.

> So like I said 100 and 101 can occur in any order. There is no reason for
> the order of them to have any effect on the transaction as a whole. 101
> has no effect on the *request* bytes and 100 has no effect on the
> *response* bytes. Why are people seeing any problem here at all?

I don't think that a server upgrading to HTTP/2.0 should be sending
100 responses that control the sending of the HTTP/1.1 request.  I
just can't imagine how that would be healthy.
Received on Friday, 6 September 2013 17:36:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:15 UTC